|Defendant||Maza Pty Ltd|
|Trading Name||Not Applicable|
|Section||22(1)(a) and 22(4)|
|Offence Date||Monday, 7 September 1998|
|Description of Breach(es)||
Being a person who had control of a workplace where persons who were not its employees worked, failed to take such measures as were practicable to ensure that the workplace was such that a person who was at the workplace was not exposed to hazards.
On the 7 September 1998 at a residential development the defendant failed to provide fall protection to the stairs, balconies and roof and also failed to ensure that scaffolding was safe, therefore sub contractors were at risk of falling.
In sentencing the defendant, Worship Heath noted that it had been the practice of the defendant to rely on sub contractors to advise him of defects with scaffolding or safety systems generally. His Worship noted that one of the aims of the Act was to ensure that the person with control of the site bore the onus of ensuring it was safe. It was therefore inappropriate to attempt to shift responsibility onto sub contractors.
Worship Health accepted that the site was a difficult one because of the split levels in the home. Nevertheless, on the day in question it was considered practicable for the defendant to have provided handrails to the internal stairs and to have ensured that scaffolding on the site was adequately erected. His Worship took into account the defendant's previous good record, and the fact that there was evidence that the defendant had endeavoured to have regard to safety on other sites.
The defendant pleaded not guilty. The penalty was imposed under section 22(4).
|Conviction Date||02 Sep 1999|
|Court||Perth Court of Petty Sessions|